A new report by the Canadian Agri-Food Policy Institute says the nation’s agricultural sector is in serious decline and recommends we ramp up our food exports. We’ve dropped from third biggest food exporter to seventh, globally, with Brazil leapfrogging us and China and Argentina nipping our heals.
The facts are there, the analysis is reasonable, but the conclusion misses the big picture. Declining food exports is less frightening than the 50 percent increase in imports as oil becomes more inaccessible and spiking food prices feed southern riots.
Another recent report by Capital Economics predicts Canadian food inflation will soon reach five percent—it’s at two percent now. We should worry less about our so-called competitiveness and more about feeding ourselves.
In Nova Scotia, where the vast majority of food is imported, that once-basic task of survival has become a meta-challenge encompassing low farm revenues, conglomeration of food retailers and farm suppliers, aging farmers, disappearing food processing infrastructure, heavy debt and poor eating habits. And as if self-sufficient eating wasn’t tough enough, poor municipal decisions are feeding our already scarce farmland to greedy developers.
The February 1 decision by Kings County councillors was textbook. Despite overwhelming community opposition, council voted six to five to rezone more than 150 hectares of prime farmland for development.
“It’s irreplaceable rural infrastructure,” says Marilyn Cameron, a resident of Greenwich in Kings Country and a representative of No Farms No Food.
Cameron points to another recent report, this one by the Nova Scotia Land Review Committee, a government-appointed group of experts. They released Preservation of Agricultural Land in Nova Scotia in July 2010, which concluded that there are serious land shortages in the province.
“We have just enough land to feed ourselves if it was all cleared,” Cameron says. “As is, there’s a 53,000-hectare shortage and we can’t afford to lose a single acre.”
She adds that while young would-be farmers in Kings County are desperate for farmland there is no indication that development over existing farms is needed. “It is already virtually impossible to locate fertile, affordable land to farm near Greenwich. Two existing Greenwich farms wishing to continue farming have expressed deep concern that their businesses may be seriously hurt by this development.”
Again, the Land Review Committee’s report backs her up. Rick Williams, a farmer with 25 years’ experience and a former Pictou County regional planner, chaired that committee.
“We found that an individual development may significantly impair the usability of surrounding land,” Williams says.
Depending on the level of protection a municipality offers residents surrounding farmland from pesticides and machinery operations, 30 to 60 percent of the province’s existing farm operations could be seriously hampered by even the smallest residential developments. At the very least, mixing dense development with farms invites conflict in those areas. Remaining farmers will likely be forced to alter their practices and the timing of farming activities to please new neighbours.
“Councillors made their decision despite there being thousands and thousands of available lots elsewhere in the county that are better suited for development without destroying farmland,” Cameron notes. “What could drive them to side with a few developers when our door-to-door survey of 200 residents—including the landowners—shows 82 percent don’t want those acres rezoned for development purposes?”
Cameron wants minister of agriculture John MacDonnell to intervene. MacDonnell has said that, unless his departmental staff find Kings County’s zoning amendments in conflict with Nova Scotia’s Statement of Provincial Interest on the Protection of Agricultural Land, he won’t ever see them.
“The amendments will definitely trigger a ministerial review,” Cameron says. To keep the pressure on, No Farms No Food is organizing a demonstration at the Halifax Farmer’s Market on an upcoming Saturday, as well as an ongoing letter-writing campaign. In the meantime, despite the clear urgency of protecting land for food production, bureaucrats at the Department of Agriculture and Service Nova Scotia & Municipal Affairs have been reviewing the Land Review Committee’s report since July.
The chair of that committee notes the urgency of moving on its many recommendations. “We don’t have a lot of spare farmland kicking around,” Williams says. “The sooner we get on it the better off we’ll be.”
This article appears in Feb 17-23, 2011.
Have you ever driven around the valley? There is a spot between Port Williams and Canning, where a few years ago, three lots were sold and very nice bungalows put up. All three of these bear SOS signs. Talk about hypocrisy.
A lot of these protesters are living on what was once farm land.
Perhaps Not In My Back Yard is what is being said.
They want farmers to raise crops, but have a problem with them trying to raise cash to do so. Seems to me they could go into business selling off village idiots to communities that are shorthanded.
These farmers are not speculators like the greed driven individuals buying up land north of Toronto for years. I have cousins farming there barely able to keep the wolves from their land. The beautiful little country cemetary where my parents and other relatives are buried is about to become an urban graveyard.
I say let these people sell off their fallow land if it helps them to survive a few more years.
Bollocks. These farmer-businessmen all had their land handed down to them from generations past (except the Streaches, who bought Blomidon Nurseries to add to their sod business in Musquodoboit) and they all operate thriving farmers markets (where they sell such farm related items as fudge, beanie babies and made in china souvenirs.) They don’t want to come to the table and find a middle ground–they want their millions of dollars from that land and they want it now. Never mind that people who want to move to the Valley to live do so in part because of the rural scenery, the local food, and the quieter lifestyle.
Those houses that the poster above refers to were built 5-10 years ago, long before such concerns were on the radar of most people. People learn, and change, and that doesn’t give us cause to berate them just because they didn’t know better a decade ago.
Mr. Dexter should make this the pilot project for agricultural land banking and husbandry it out to young farmers.
A win-win for agriculture, tourism and all Nova Scotians for generations to come, for about the initial price of the recently installed New Minas rotary but with long term paybacks a thousand fold over.
Chris,
We hope that you are working on a follow-up to “Drive-by Saviours”; a more reasonable excuse for getting this article so wrong, there could not be. You probably haven’t had time to visit our blog at http://www.valleyfamilyfarms.com, where you would have found plenty of information and analysis on the land-use issue. In fact, it’s there, on the blog, where we have exposed the organization formerly known as ‘No Farms No Food’, and the Nova Scotia Agricultural Land Review Committee for their faulty arguments and incorrect information.
Please, Chris, read our critique of the ‘Preservation of Agricultural Land in Nova Scotia’ Report and then, with a straight-face, call the committee that prepared it “experts”. We are available for comment when you realize that an accurate follow-up must be written.
Kindest regards,
The Valley Family Farms Blog Team
This blather coming from a left-wing lobby group(NoFarmsNo Food) is normal.
Full of errors and misconceptions. Pauline Raven states that similar land in Port Williams is to be developed. Nothing could be further from the truth,,,that parcel of land by no means compares to the unusable land owned by the Greenwich farmers.
The Pt Williams group only got approval to develpe one half of there parcel approx 50 acres. Yes, it is good farmland. The topography of much of the Greenwich land nakes it almost impossible to farm. plus its wooded and swampland.
The “blather” is coming from the “The Valley Family Farms Blog Team” more aptly named “SPECULATOR-farmers” who wish to gamble the future of our food supply and tourism industry, AND do so with the taxpayers dime!
Go to this URL to see the lands claimed to be “almost impossible to farm” !
http://www.nofarmsnofood.ca/myfiles/Before…
Ouch, Joe Tourist.
Which of our arguments do you regard as mere “blather”? Was it when we exposed each position held by that fleeting organization, (sorry, the name escapes us), as irrelevant? Or was it when we reasoned that farmer’s are in the best position to understand and respond to market signals and should be left alone to do so? Perhaps it was when we revealed their “legal opinion” to be nothing more than pointless and destructive politicking? You decide, Joe; but just know, in your heart of hearts, you are always welcome to stop by the blog (http://www.valleyfamilyfarms.com) and comment. Or submit an article for publishing. After all, we are the voices dedicated to addressing the issues and concerns tabled by everyone in the debate. We are the group that is standing up for the rights of farmer’s. Please, Joe, engage us.
Kindest-of-all regards,
The Valley Family Farms Blog Team
http://www.valleyfamilyfarms.com
Of course there are 3 sides to every story; here is one from the editorial of the local paper:
Editorial: The Kings County Advertiser, February 08, 2011.
Heartache over Greenwich.
We share in the disappointment being expressed over the county’s Greenwich
Comprehensive Development District decision last week.
Not necessarily because of council’s ultimate decision to rezone the five subject properties – its prerogative, but because great opportunities have been lost.
People cared about this decision. Hundreds turned out for the January 17 public hearing. More followed the meeting online via Face-book, Twitter and stories. That level of interest in a municipal government decision is incredible.
Wolfville’s council repeatedly asked Kings County to slow down and talk about regional planning: a great chance to get cooperation back on track after the divisive education funding case of last year.
Vocal opponents of the rezoning plan with No Farms, No Foods and the property owners who applied for the change may have been the loudest, but they were not the only ones. The public meetings, hearings, internet postings – even the Letters to the Editor pages of The Advertiser and Register – have included many new voices.
Were they heard by councillors? We don’t know; but minimal respect for public contributions was shown in the final phases.
While the process was not short, parts seemed rushed. Hiring an outside consultant so the work could be done faster – even after staff asked that regional planning be given priority – still raises concern. Once the rezoning application passed first reading in December, there was a suggestion a public hearing between Christmas and New Year would suit. Delaying it until Jan. 17 wasn’t much better; as only one night was allowed instead of the usual two, and no storm date was scheduled.
At the hearing itself, there was not enough room for the audience and the sound system in the overflow area failed within an hour, shutting, many out of the process. Even after some people left in frustration, oral submissions went on for almost six hours.
At least council acknowledged the impossibility of processing the public hearing submissions before a vote the next day choosing to delay the final decision until Feb. 1.
In the end, the same six councillors who voted for the application at first reading voted for it at second reading, the same five opposed it. During the Feb. 1 discussion, Councillor Chris Parker suggested most of the members of the public who participated “didn’t understand” the application.
Was the public input process a token gesture? A waste of many citizens’ time? A precious opportunity for county council lost? This level of political engagement, pro and con, is exceptionally rare at the municipal level.
Applicant Peter Elderkin says he wants to see “rational thought and planning”. Reason demands a better way. A way to make a decision about the county’s future while honouring the common concerns of many of those who spoke for and against the application; the need for farmers to make a living and a desire to encourage more young people to live and work here. A way through a process that does not bitterly divide the community.
Points for evasion, Joe Tourist. Points for evasion.
Methinks ValleyFamilyFarms blog is the product of a pr firm hired by the farmers wanting to develop their land. I am always suspicious of blogs without a name attached.
SeenItAll
Dear SeenItAll,
We are most certainly not a pr firm, although, we’ll take that as a compliment. You are right to be incredulous of blogs without ‘names attached’; luckily http://www.valleyfamilyfarms.com doesn’t fall into that particular category. We have a post named “Full Disclosure” which, as the title suggests, discloses all the relevant information. In fact, we are, by any standard, far more transparent than any other group involved in the debate. Check our blog soon to find out more…www.valleyfamilyfarms.com
Kind regards,
The Valley Family Farms Blog Team
“landuse” says the Greenwich lands are “almost impossible to farm.”
Not so says the Agricultural Impact Assessment which indentifies over 300 of the 382 acres of land as Class, 2, 3, and active 4 soils, the best we have in Nova Scotia.
The fact is these lands have been farmed successfully for 330 years. They are a productive, sustainable natural resource that will provide food and employment for our children and our children’s children forever if they are protected by the Government of Nova Scotia.
Tell the premier to stop the destruction approved by Kings County Council. Write premier@gov.ns.ca
Tom Cosman, bee farmer
Greenwich
ValleyFamilyFarms: I looked at your blog, and I read most of it, I think carefully. And I must say, it’s difficult to take some of your arguments seriously when some of your reasoning is flawed. Before I point out a few issues I have with some logic, may I also add, don’t try to be so formal in your language – it comes across as stilted and it’s actually hurting *your* message.
Briefly, on some points:
1) an argument is advanced that if we talk about food security then we must talk about security of all other resources and products also. The example used was pharmaceuticals. Well, no, we don’t have to do that. We can concentrate on food security in this debate;
2) Technological innovation as an answer to decreasing farmland: well, you know something, a great deal of that “innovation” (and subsequent massive increases in productivity) has come about through industrial farming and hence destruction of farming communities, non-sustainable use of non-renewable water supplies, destruction of soil through salinization, conversion of soil to fertilized and disinfected dirt, monocultures and a great reduction in crop biodiversity, loading our food up with pesticides and antibiotics, and greatly increased pollution of water supplies. *That* is what your technological innovation is all about;
3) And let’s examine this statement from the blog: “By producing everything we need ourselves…we forego all of the benefits of specialization and trade that have raised the standard of living of BILLIONS of people across the world.” Look, there may be – probably are – some folks out there who are arguing for total food self-sufficiency here, but that’s a seriously minority view. Most people are looking at things like the serious food shortages that are currently occurring on the planet (did you miss those?), the fact that we are held hostage to wildly varying food prices in a few giant grocery chains that ship in pre-contracted average or poor quality food from Mexico or California or overseas, and the fact that we import close to 90 percent of our food, and observing that it might be better if we imported only 70 or 50 percent of our food. And in order to meet those targets we do need to be aggressive in protecting our remaining farmland.
And on a final note, you’d come across a lot better if you didn’t focus on “exposing” No Farms No Food, and certain lawyers, and that land review committee. Just focus on your arguments and their arguments. In fact, you guys would come across as more honest if you just made the argument that you think that since it’s your farmland, it’s nobody’s business but yours if you decide to sell it to a subdivision developer. That *is* your argument, after all – why dance around it? If it has merit then proceed on that basis and develop the argument.
Dear Realist in Dartmouth,
Thanks for keeping it real and visiting our blog. Also, thanks for the tips on our diction – you reminded us that one must be constantly vigilant to avoid being overly pedantic.
You claim that our “reasoning is flawed” and that it’s difficult to take our “arguments seriously”. You state it’s your intention to “point out a few issues” with our logic, and then you proceed to identify and address a total of zero logical errors.
To recap your points, briefly:
1. The point of the food security argument vis a vis the pharmaceutical security example is that it can be extremely costly to produce the things we need locally, and in fact, there is nothing inherently morally superior (as is commonly presumed) to discussing the security of our food supply as against the supply of pharmaceutical drugs, automobiles, etc. You can, of course, concentrate on food security in this debate – to the detriment of your position.
2. The technological innovation point wasn’t some ex-post story telling. Although it is illustrative to look back and understand the impact technological innovation has had on the productivity of farms (all of which is not nearly as destructive as you suggest), it’s the future technological innovation that inevitably takes place to mitigate things like soil degradation, monocultures, etc. that we were referencing. Again, there are no logical errors here.
3. You would have benefitted, no doubt, from having read a little more carefully the article “We need more….Breakfast Cereal Security?” which is the post you quoted for your third…’point’. You argue that self-sufficiency is a “seriously minority view”, we are inclined to agree with you, but that particular article was a critique of the Nova Scotia Agricultural Land Review Committee Report –which they stated, in no uncertain terms, that was the standard by which they were basing their recommendations for ACTUAL POLICY decisions, complete self-sufficiency.
To your other…observations, we need only point out one of your errors, which will serve to clarify your thinking. You use the possessive “our” to refer to farmland – our? Farmland doesn’t produce crop yields through its own volition. Farmer’s, not the farmland, plant and tend and harvest and invest in their capital and sacrifice their consumption to produce food that we eat. By what right do you think that any part of that process or output is yours? Answering that question will allow the “Realist” to emerge and will go a long way to your understanding of the issues.
Feel free to submit an article to the blog. This would be an interesting conversation to continue elsewhere. Thanks Coast, for providing such an excellent forum!
Kind regards,
The Valley Family Farms Blog Team
Valley Family Farms: “The point of the food security argument vis a vis the pharmaceutical security example is that it can be extremely costly to produce the things we need locally, and in fact, there is nothing inherently morally superior (as is commonly presumed) to discussing the security of our food supply as against the supply of pharmaceutical drugs, automobiles, etc. You can, of course, concentrate on food security in this debate – to the detriment of your position.”
You are missing or avoiding the point. Human beings can survive without automobiles. We cannot survive without food. It’s not a moral argument: that is simple reality.
Sure it can be extremely costly to produce things locally, particularly when competing with heavily subsidized products from other parts of the world. However, there is nothing more costly than putting all of our eggs in one basket, and relying entirely on an increasingly unreliable international food supply that is heavily dependent on cheap oil, particularly at a time of increasing crop failure, and rising oil prices. Because the price of that decision could very well be starvation.
I would suggest you VFFblog guys aren’t standing up for the rights of farmers as you claim, rather you are poised to encroach on steadfast farmers in the area and even propose expropriation of lands of one farmer located in the middle of this boondoggle.
Many other ardent farmers have lamented publicly and frequently the impossibility of obtaining agricultural land in the area and oppose this whole scheme. With your blog you hope to dupe the Provincial Government as was the County.
Joseph Howe,
You must be kidding. Are you? You accuse us of “avoiding the point” and then you focus on automobiles? Now, this isn’t the forum to take you through the automobile argument, it would take a lot of dialogue to dispel some of the myths you have, no doubt, taken to heart. Why not, then, address the pharmaceutical security argument? It seems to me that’s the closest analogy – and it meets your criteria of being necessary to sustain human life, at least to a non-negligible percentage of our population. So, Joe, what say you?
Kind regards,
The Valley Family Farms Blog Team
http://www.valleyfamilyfarms.com
Joe Tourist,
Twist and turn and squirm as you might, the fact remain unchanged. We are firmly in support of farmer’s rights; that’s what all this is about. To suggest you somehow care about the rights of those poor “steadfast” farmer’s (who, lets acknowledge, benefit greatly from the favourable zoning of their land) simply exposes your position as contradictory. When you look at a judgement of this nature it’s not just the wealth transfers between the immediate parties that matter, but the third party effects that may impact systemic incentives. This is why our position remains consistent in the face of your futile probing.
Furthermore, the Province has nothing to say on this issue. If you don’t believe us, why don’t you ask the UNSM if the Province has any business a municipal decision of this nature. Or, you could always consult the Municipal Government Act. All the best, Joey-T.
Kind regards,
The Valley Family Farms Blog Team
http://www.valleyfamilyfarms.com
There are indeed several areas of Provincial interest which may be deemed in conflict of the common good of the people and we trust our newly elected Premier, Kings North and South MLAs, the Ministers of Agriculture, Transportation, Environment, Tourism, Culture and Heritage to make it their business, contrary to your rhetoric, to attend to the wishes and future good of the clearly overwhelming majority of the public… Peace Out.
Valley Farms: you raised the issue of automobiles, not me. Don’t use red herring arguments if you aren’t prepared to have someone point out to you that they stink.
And your pharmaceuticals argument isn’t much better. Modern pharamaceuticals are obviously not absolutely necessary to sustain human life: humans obviously survived for tens of thousands of years without them. We wouldn’t last a month without food.
Pharmaceuticals can be a useful tool for helping people lead long and healthy lives. However, that does not make them necessary for human survival. Also, pharmaceuticals are not vulnerable to nearly the same degree of threats to supply as food is. They are not nearly as vulnerable to changing climate and weather patterns, including drought and exteme weather events. Their cost is far less dependent on, for example, the price of oil, a rapidly fluctuating variable.
Bottom line: food is absolutely necessary for human survival, and is very vulnerable in terms of supply. Pharmaceuticals are not. Now stop throwing out red herrings and address the real issue.
Dearest Joseph Howe,
Your antediluvian notions are enough to make anyone shudder. We suggest spending a little less time worrying about “red-herring arguments” and more time thinking through the statements you make. “Pharmaceuticals are obviously not absolutely necessary to sustain human life” – take a quick walk through the hospital nearest you and then suggest that *some* (non-trivial) percentage of our population doesn’t absolutely need pharmaceutical drugs to survive. No thinking person would argue that the existence of pharmaceutical drugs is a necessary condition for the survival of our “species” – but that’s not AT ALL what we are talking about. We are talking about people. Humans. We are talking about drugs that enable PEOPLE to live with diseases like Diabetes and through infections like influenza. As these pharmacological interventions are necessary to sustain someone’s life, why shouldn’t we care about the security of their supply with equal vigour – after all, it is the injured and the ill that are the most vulnerable in our society? You argument implies that their needs don’t matter because their survival isn’t necessary for the survival of the species. How savage and morose.
You further pontificate “Their [Pharmaceuticals] cost is far less dependent on, for example, the price of oil” Our question is simple – how could you possibly know that? Pointing out your absolute inability to understand the fundamental information problem you encounter when even attempting to get a handle on a question like that is enough to disarm the entirety of your contribution thus far. It’s not that you don’t know the necessary information – it’s that that information is *unknowable*.
The real issue, J-Money, is simple: Food Security = Food Self-Sufficiency (on some localized scale). This, if we have avoided missteps, is what your argument reduces to. Right? The trouble with self-sufficiency is that it leads to poverty and mass starvation, a quick look through history will confirm this. Autarky is the road to Poverty – this judgement is clear and unambiguous.
Although no clear pharmacological interventions are available for your demonstrable knowledge deficit in this area, it is our belief that a little information will go a long way for you. Take some time and read up on the issues at our blog http://www.valleyfamilyfarms.com We’ll be ready to walk your fragile concepts through the automobile argument when you have finished educating yourself on the fundamental principles that underpin what we’re talking about here.
Regards,
The Valley Family Farms Blog Team
http://www.valleyfamilyfarms.com
VFF: you’re right, I could and should post to your blog as well. No harm done in writing to the Coast in the meantime though.
Let me address one specific point: my use of the word “our”, as in “our farmland”. I think you’re smart enough to recognize that I don’t dispute the legal title of a farmer to the land that he owns. I think you’re also smart enough to know that owning property, specifically land, isn’t an absolute right. Society has, and always has had, interests in which property rights a landowner actually has. I used “our” in that sense, considering society’s interests. For example, you cannot deny the existence of land use policies (this is precisely what this entire discussion is about), or environmental regulations, just to name a few limitations on what you can actually do with land.
As far as any part of that process you described – “farmers … plant and tend and harvest and invest in their capital and sacrifice their consumption to produce food that we eat” – being mine (ours, as in non-farmers), I’d say quite a lot, seeing as how we’re 98 percent or so of all the consumers, and we’re the only reason you even bother.
VFF said:
“The trouble with self-sufficiency is that it leads to poverty and mass starvation, a quick look through history will confirm this. Autarky is the road to Poverty – this judgement is clear and unambiguous. “
I think this statement is just plain wrong on a number of levels but I’ll address only one for now. The globalization of agricultural markets has led to more poverty and starvation in the last three decades, not less. That same poverty and starvation may be mostly invisible to North American consumers and producers, but it exists nonetheless in many less developed parts of the world where subsistence farmers have been driven from their lands by forces inherent in the globalization of agricultural commodities markets in the last thirty years.
This international system for the production and transport of agricultural commodities will become increasingly vulnerable to high fuel costs as we bid farewell to the era of cheap fossil fuels and enter an age of energy scarcity.
Autarky isn’t the road to poverty. It is the road to survival, for populations around the world.
Dear Realist,
You had us at “you’re right”;) We would love to accept any contributions from you at our blog; we have no doubt that your intellect is vibrant. (Don’t take that as sarcasm – we’ve been sarcastic here before and we really do have fun responding to your particular line of dialogue.)
As you pointed out, it is the desirability of land-use policies that we are questioning, in addition to attempting to elucidate the implications of such policies on people and markets.
For your last observation, our point was to isolate the claim you (as in anyone other than the farmer) had on the farmer’s processes or output. You rightly identified that you do have a claim to the farmer’s output, when you purchase a tomato, say. Other than that though, no legit claims exist (save whatever claims the farmer contractually agrees to in the process of operating the business). Let’s attack this problem from a different direction.
Imagine you are a farmer. You run a large farm in a rural area, with only a handful of competitors. One day, you win the lottery. With your new means in hand, you decide that farming, what with the waking up early and whatnot, is too difficult a life to continue. So, when spring comes you don’t plant, or tend, or harvest. Do last year’s customers have the right to demand that you continue to farm? Do they have some latent claim to the potential productivity of your asset? What do you think?
Kind regards,
VFF Blog Team
http://www.valleyfamilyfarms.com
Dear C.E.,
At the risk of sinking your battleship – what possible metrics could you be looking at when you suggest that poverty and starvation have increased in the last thirty years? That is a preposterous statement. The fact that globalized agricultural markets haven’t alleviated all of the world’s poverty and starvation DOES NOT stand as evidence that it is the cause of such devastation.
Have you ever stopped to think about why the poverty and starvation is “mostly invisible” to North Americans? Could it possibly have something to do with well-defined and enforced property rights? And, let’s not blur a very important distinction: you are talking about choosing autarky, NOT having self-sufficiency be the only alternative for survival – as is the case for the “populations around the world”. Or, do you think the poor and hungry around the world, trying to subsist, choose to live that way?
Ciao,
VFF Blog Team
http://www.valleyfamilyfarms.com
VFF: your ability to avoid an argument is exceeded only by your propensity for using your own blog as the only source to support your own spurious counter-arguments. Self-referential, thy name is valley farms.
“No thinking person would argue that the existence of pharmaceutical drugs is a necessary condition for the survival of our “species” – but that’s not AT ALL what we are talking about.” Actually, that is more or less exactly what we are talking about. No-one is arguing that pharmaceuticals aren’t incredibly useful, and that some percentage of the human species doesn’t rely on them for their personal survival. However, only using your backwards logic does this mean that “pharmaceutical security” is every bit as important is food security, given that the ENTIRE human species relies on food for their survival.
I suggest you try a version of your own exercise. Take a walk down ANY street in ANY town or walk into ANY room in ANY building and tell me how many people that you encounter on your way rely on food for their survival. That’s right: every single one. Now explain to me again why all of those people aren’t entitled to a secure food supply.
As for the relationship between food prices and oil prices, here is a graph showing the correlation:
http://www.paulchefurka.ca/Oil_Food.html
Once you are able to show me a similarly strong correlation between oil prices and pharmaceutical prices, then I might be prepared to consider your argument with any degree of seriousness.
“The trouble with self-sufficiency is that it leads to poverty and mass starvation, a quick look through history will confirm this.” Again, if you are prepared to provide some kind of source other than your blog for this sweeping generalization, I might be prepared to debate it. On the flipside I will refer you to the following well-researched argument: that societies that exceed the carrying capacity of their environment (most particularly its ability to produce food) almost inevitably fail. I refer you to the works of Jared Diamond and Brian Fagan, among others.
“Food Security = Food Self-Sufficiency (on some localized scale). This, if we have avoided missteps, is what your argument reduces to. Right?” Oh, it’s far more complex than that. But to try and keep it as simple as possible for you, let’s try and sum it up as: diversified and localized production of food is less risky. Diversification is the most obvious and succesful strategy for dealing with risk, while monoculture (aka putting all of your eggs in one basket) is a recipe for failure on a grand scale. Further, when it comes to supply risks, as any military planner can tell you, the longer your supply lines become, the harder they are to secure.
We have created a food system that relies on lengthy supply lines based on a supply of cheap oil that is rapidly running out . We are also facing a number of threats to food production itself, including increased risk of crop failure due to extreme weather events associated with climate change,. To fail to make reasonable efforts to diversify and secure our food supply in the face of those trends, and to continue to plow under our limited agricultural land to build subdivisions is unmitigated folly that will lead only one place in the long run: food shortage and starvation.
Young Joey,
The descriptive phrase you were awkwardly groping for is “false equivalency” – in that, you are objecting to us equating “food security” and “pharmaceutical security”. We agree, it’s not exact, but its close; plus it does a great job of illuminating a particular point we’re interested in: the relevant scarcity can only be identified on an individual level. Some people are more concerned with the security of their food supply, others with the supply of their asthma medication. An individual’s choice in this matter reflects their particular circumstances and preferences – or in your case, it reflects…other things. This brings us nicely to your next point: entitlement.
In your – we don’t feel comfortable describing it as a ‘thought experiment’ as that implies equipment that you have yet to prove you possess – example, you state “Now explain to me again why all of those people aren’t entitled to a secure food supply.” You really need us to explicate this point? We firmly agree that it would be ideal if each human had a secure supply of food, but unfortunately we reside in reality. (Note to Joe: Reality is cold this time of year. Do wear a jacket when you join us.) The facts of reality and nature compel us, on a very fundamental level, to understand that each of us must apply our ability to the problem of survival, in order to survive. Each of us is entitled to the yield that our ability provides, nothing more. Now, to circle back to the above paragraph about individual choice, if you value the security of your food supply (if that is, in your “mind”, the relevant scarcity), by all means, use the yield provided by your ability and effort to secure a supply of food for you and your loved one(s). DO NOT try to change or influence public policy based on weird, unconsidered and unsubstantiated notions about what OTHER people may or may not want.
Your complete ignorance of economics is on full display when you reference people like Paul Che Furka as your “source”. We weren’t discussing the correlation between food prices and oil prices, or pharmaceutical prices and oil prices. You made the claim that food prices are more dependent on the cost of oil, to which, we simply pointed out the undeniable fact that you have no way of knowing whether that is actually true. We would not be surprised if, in fact, the price correlation (which, in any event, is a largely meaningless concept) between pharmaceuticals and oil was higher than that of food, given the heavy use of petroleum in plastics manufacturing. But, again, that still doesn’t give us any kind of clue as to what the price of any of these products is DEPENDENT upon or COMPOSED of. (The data you cite doesn’t even fit Mr. Furka’s theory – or did you miss the part when he says that.)
As we continue sifting through your dross, the reason you are so wrong is slowly starting to emerge. You are relying on Paul Furka, Jared Diamond, Brian Fagan and unnamed military planners for your information, while we get the benefit of drawing on Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Milton Freidman, Ludwig von Mises, Frederick Hayek, Thomas Shelling, Richard Epstein, /etc/etc. You’re right – forget reading our blog, it will do you no good. Lock yourself in a room and read the above authors extensively – you will emerge the better for it.
Joe, when someone attempts to reduce an argument they, at times, might do so to make it easier to understand and/or communicate. Other times, however, they reduce it to get at the underlying principles which may not be obvious in the particular manifestation in question. You claim “diversified and localized production of food is less risky”, only to state in the very next paragraph that there is an “increased risk of crop failure due to extreme weather events”. How do you square this in your mind? You seem to suggest that the only way to mitigate the risks associated with increased crop failure is to rely, completely, on localized production. As we stated earlier, take a quick look through history to discover what happened to people who relied on a local supply of food, whilst crossing their fingers that adverse weather events would affect “someone else”.
Your concept of monoculture is incomplete. The sun is a monoculture – all humans rely completely on that star to survive. This fact does not mean that we must take the extraordinarily expensive steps to diversify the supply of stars we rely on – the costs of such an endeavour are clearly not worth it, at this point. Hyper-intelligent apes, also known as humans, are perhaps the most pervasive monoculture here on earth. If your plan is to eradicate that particular monoculture, we think you are on the right track. The question is: are we willing to acquiesce to your so-called ‘solutions’? Well it should be obvious by now, but, just so we’re clear: NO WAY, JOE HOWE.
Adios,
VFF Blog Team
http://www.valleyfamilyfarms.com
hmm – doesn’t it seem like the councilors are choosing potentially higher properties taxes (which can go completely unchecked in Nova Scotia) over lower agricultural status property taxes – that were put in place to protect our agricultural land.
Hmm – money grab – can’t local councilors figure out other ways to correct their over spending?